The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Withdrawn per improvement. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:20, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kevin Fowler (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Textbook WP:NENAN. The other albums before Loose, Loud & Crazy were independent releases and are unlikely to have articles. The only "notable single" is notable for someone else's version, not his own. Related articles do not count towards the unofficial 5 article limit of WP:NENAN. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - First things first, I did not receive a notice on my talk page regarding this TfD. Second, Fowler was a member of Dangerous Toys, has 8 albums (four of which have charted in the top 20), four charted singles and a hit song that he wrote entitled "Long Line of Losers". WP:NMUSIC states "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting". I don't think we want the whole track listings for the first four albums all in the main article. "Pound Sign (#?*!)" has a review at http://www.roughstock.com/blog/kevin-fowler-pound-sign, Chippin' Away has a review at http://www.musicnewsnashville.com/kevin-fowler-%E2%80%93-chippin%E2%80%99-away, "That Girl" has reviews at http://www.texascountrychart.com/2011/09/single-review-kevin-fowler-that-girl.html, http://tasteofcountry.com/kevin-fowler-that-girl/ & http://www.musicnewsnashville.com/kevin-fowlers-that-girl-video-premieres-1014, High on the Hog has a review at http://countrymusic.about.com/library/blhighonthehogrev.htm, and Beer, Bait & Ammo has a review at http://www.billboard.com/artist/kevin-fowler/422283#/artist/kevin-fowler/422283 .--Jax 0677 (talk) 15:56, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Articles for those albums don't exist. A navigational box should be created when there are enough related articles to warrant one, not create the template because there should be articles for them. You're talking about merging articles that don't even exist. The discography seems to work fine for now. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:16, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are now 8, count 'em, 8 articles linked by the navbox. This is 2 more than enough, even according to WP:NENAN. Without the navbox, the articles do not link to one another.--Jax 0677 (talk) 04:39, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It just comes back to you needing to create quality navboxes in the first place so they don't keep getting nominated at TfD. Beer, Bait & Ammo and High on the Hog (Kevin Fowler album) should probably be redirected to Kevin Fowler as they provide little info beyond a track listing. The record label wouldn't count per NENAN but I guess you've got your 5. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 07:27, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - According to WP:TOOSHORT, "For articles and other material with the same issues", "if there is even the slightest potential for it to be expanded beyond this, it should be kept". Only one of my templates for musical ensembles that has been nominated for TfD (Kip Moore) has been deleted (the navbox for Back From Ashes was deleted due to the article being purged at AfD). Because the community objected to creating record company navboxes complete with album and song articles, I have since refrained from doing so.

Again, do you really want the track listings for Kevin Fowler's four lowest ranking albums in his main article?--Jax 0677 (talk) 16:01, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rather obvious keep There are plenty of articles linked in this template where a link in the article prose wouldn't make sense, there are plenty of topics linked, and a couple where the connection to the artist would otherwise not be clear. Ego White Tray (talk) 02:58, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Thank you EWT. This is yet another example of failure to perform research prior to TfD. I will assume that nothing more needs to be added to this template at this time.--Jax 0677 (talk) 03:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. For musician/band templates in general, my preference would be to establish ~5 "quality" album+song articles before making the artist's navbox, rather than creating a navbox and then figuring out during a TfD if ~5 standalone album+song articles are possible/likely/warranted. I think such an approach would result in less drama here while decreasing workloads for other editors. There's nothing magical about the number 5; I just use it to describe roughly the commonly accepted threshold in these parts. And by "quality" articles, I'm not saying they must be Good Articles; stubs are fine. I just mean they should be detailed enough to at least meet the basic WP:GNG/WP:MUSIC guidelines with significant coverage evidenced in the articles' references. In this case, at the time of nomination there were articles for only two albums and one song, and the song's notability has nothing to do with this artist. So the nomination was perfectly reasonable, in my view. As it turned out, the number of album articles has grown, which is great, but now the notability of two of the newly-created album articles appears suspect, and Beer, Bait & Ammo in particular should probably be redirected to the artist. If it helps, there seems to be enough material for an article on Fowler's song, "That Girl" [1][2][3][4].  Gongshow ^Talk 07:20, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

QUESTION - Gongshow, do you really want ALL of the track listings for Kevin Fowler's four lowest ranking albums in his main article?--Jax 0677 (talk) 15:20, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. I do think merging is appropriate in some cases ("space permitting", as WP:NALBUMS puts it), but four such merges to an artist's page tends to be too messy. When a single artist has a group of non-notable albums I typically support using redirects instead.  Gongshow ^Talk 01:10, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was wrong forum. Discussion has been moved to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 November 18#Category:Sarawak-stub. No admin closure Ego White Tray (talk) 03:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sarawak-stub (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There's already a Malaysia stub and Sarawak geo stub template.. so why we need this ?? Is Sarawak not in Malaysia ? — иz нίpнόp  14:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now. Just because something is part of something else doesn't preclude it having its own stub template. More specific templates help organise articles in a much clearer fashion for anyone who potentially wants to start working on that topic. I would never expect it to be used side by side with the Malaysia template, but the Malaysia template can always cover subtemplates, if it needs to. Similar cases exist, such as Template:Ohio-stub. However, the image should change to the geo-stub flag. Much cleaner, and not OR. I do note however, that the user who created these templates does actually somehow hold the opinion that Sabah and Sarawak aren't part of Malaysia, so they may not be currently very well applied. If there is a pragmatic reason to delete, such as there simply not being enough entires to justify a unique tag, then that's another matter, but determining that would definitely require a bit of cleanup, and I suspect in the end that there are a lot of Sabah and Sarawak stubs. CMD (talk) 17:38, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was wrong forum. Discussion has been moved to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 November 18#Category:Sarawak-stub. No admin closure Ego White Tray (talk) 03:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sabah-stub (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There's already a Malaysia stub and Sabah geo stub template.. so why we need this ?? Is Sabah not in Malaysia ? — иz нίpнόp  14:50, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now. Just because something is part of something else doesn't preclude it having its own stub template. More specific templates help organise articles in a much clearer fashion for anyone who potentially wants to start working on that topic. I would never expect it to be used side by side with the Malaysia template, but the Malaysia template can always cover subtemplates, if it needs to. Similar cases exist, such as Template:Ohio-stub. However, the image should change to the geo-stub flag. Much cleaner, and not OR. I do note however, that the user who created these templates does actually somehow hold the opinion that Sabah and Sarawak aren't part of Malaysia, so they may not be currently very well applied. If there is a pragmatic reason to delete, such as there simply not being enough entires to justify a unique tag, then that's another matter, but determining that would definitely require a bit of cleanup, and I suspect in the end that there are a lot of Sabah and Sarawak stubs. CMD (talk) 17:38, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:04, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wikitravel reuse (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template, only references to this are on a wikivoyage: user's tracking list and on the template's own documentation subpage. The premise appears to be that text from wikitravel (a commercial site which is de-facto a fork of WMF's project Wikivoyage) is somehow worth dumping as copypasta into Wikipedia articles. I don't think this sort of copying is something that WP has any reason to want - partially because we already have the content on voy: (a sibling project) and partially because dumping it into WP fails WP:RS and WP:V (Wikipedia cites sources for its info, WV/WT by design do not; we don't want unsourced 'facts' being copy-pasted into the encyclopaedia). K7L (talk) 06:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikivoyage is the fork, Wikitravel is the original. Just because WMF copied the content off Wikitravel and took all its editors does not make Wikivoyage not a fork. There are many software projects where the fork absorbs all the developers making the original project dead, but they're still forks. -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 08:19, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion for the reasons given above. BTW, this is a very cheap trick to get permanent "trusted links" from Wikipedia (for google SEO) to Wikitravel. --Atlasowa (talk) 10:28, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I think you're reading rather too much into the motives here based on the recent WikiTravel kerfuffle. Nevertheless, this is unused and broken (it was only half-finished, and so still references Citizendium like the template it was forked from). We don't need attribution templates for sites that we're not going to copy content from. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• There's a massive failure of assume good faith here. I created the template for Wikitravel reuse precisely because someone had created a page that reused content from Wikitravel. That said content is now hosted on Wikivoyage or is unsourced is irrelevant: under the terms of the CC-BY-SA license, we need to attribute the source of content. (Indeed, it may be legitimate to copy unsourced content to Wikipedia so long as you then add sources.) The idea that I created this template as "a very cheap trick to get permanent "trusted links" from Wikipedia (for google SEO) to Wikitravel" is so laughable that I may break down and lose control of my bladder. I wrote a long blog post recently ripping Internet Brands to shreds over their mishandling of the Wikitravel affair. At ANI recently, I supported indef blocking IBobi from Wikipedia. The idea that I'm some secret lackey in a plot by Wikitravel to infiltrate Wikipedia and garner them good SEO is utterly ludicrous. Delete it if it is unused, but let's try to have these discussions that without attributing malicious intent to fellow Wikipedia editors (i.e. me). —Tom Morris (talk) 15:43, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't check who made the template. Just two days ago, I saw someone bragging about this kind of template on a list of most creative linkbuilding ideas for SEO ("Spam links on Wikipedia get deleted, but nobody dares to remove a copyright notice from the pages"). I hope this (and the wikitravel thing) explains a little my comment. --Atlasowa (talk) 18:52, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.